ARS on Twitter
RSS
More Judicial Antics
Posted by CaptDMO on July 12th, 2006
Ah yes, once again, our friends from the south have a different
approach to integrity than my long time neighbors do.
The criticism seriously questions Judge Manzi’s ethics, making claims that a
tape-recording was edited, and that a Lawrence attorney could substantiate the statements were missing from the tape. In a bit of an irony, Kevin Thompson complains in his book, Judge Mainz should have recused herself for having personal bias.
Despite the book containing lengthy and scathing criticisms of the Judge Manzi, reliable statements made Mr. Thompson and Fathers and Families indicate that Judge Manzi ruled on whether to ban the book and, in fact, actually banned it.
Notes Attorney Del Gallo, “The law is quite clear. Judges cannot rule on cases where there is a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. What we have here is a conflict of interest on an acid trip. While completely trampling on the free speech rights of Mr. Thompson, a judge has banned a book that is scathingly critical of her. Apart from accepting an actual bribe or ruling on a case where a judge plainly has a financial interest in the outcome of a case, it is hard to imagine a more manifest conflict of interest.”
I’d say the industry, and venue for judicial activism, that family courts seem to
be aspireing to, needs to be looked at. Up north, the State has just recently
opened up a new family court to alleviate the strain on the criminal courts.
I’d say they can be breeding grounds for criminal actions. I just recently saw
an ad in the local paper for a professional evaluator in regards to family
court cases. What humanities degree is the prerequisite for that anyway?
Time to consider other venues for resolving such matters!
For the record. I tried to get the book that was “Banned in Boston”
(sorry, old joke) for a while, but…um…it’s banned!
I don’t particularly give a crap what a judge deems appropriate to ban
publication of, especially with claims of “for the children” in that the son’s
picture was on the back of the jacket.
Got a copy? I’m buying!
My local bookseller doesn’t, and the local national chain left town.
